Going Overboard on Open Source

ZDNet ^ | 26 August 2002 | John Carroll

[rdb3]

Interesting!

Still, why MS decided to release a Corporate version of XP that didn't need activation defeated the whole purpose of their piracy initiative puzzles me. All it took was one sys/netadmin with that key and version to upload to a newsgroup, and game's over.

How long do you think it will take until someone figures a way around this?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The difference is that companies enter into contracts voluntarily and if they think the costs outweigh the benefits they can tell the other company to get bent.

The contract offered by Microsoft was "Install Microsoft exclusively or not at all." You and I both know Dell would not last five minutes if it could not install Windows on most PCs.

That doesn't sound very "voluntary" to me. Sounds more like extortion. And apparently that is fine with you, but as soon as somebody else tries to do the same thing in a slightly different venue you get all squeamish.

Why is government exempted from entering into exclusionary contracts when Microsoft isn't?

[discostu]

It's still a contract is therefore a voluntary agreement. Whether or not Dell would survive without it is part ofthe costs of the contract that they need to consider.

Well for one thing your reversing the concept. There a big difference between the customer (the government) entering into an exclusionary contract and the seller (MS). Next you have to understand the difference between ENTERING into a contract and a law being passed. If the open source guys pass a law saying the government can only use X (open source, MS, bananas, whatever) that NOT entering a contract exclusionary or otherwise.

Oh, and before you continue this rant, I suggest you go to www.dell.com and do a search on linux.

[eno_]

Well it is unfair to vendors that incorporate closed-source software into systems, but the government has a billion other regulations on how things can be sold to it, many of them forcing disclosure that would be way out of bounds in any other market. Read some of the regulations and/or RFQs for selling prepared food to the military. For that matter, at one point the government was going to mandate all DoD software be written in Ada. Considering the benefits of open source software, this is one of the less goofy ideas.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Oh, and before you continue this rant, I suggest you go to www.dell.com and do a search on linux.

I did. Dell sells Linux on servers and they sell the uninstalled software, but they don't sell desktop PCs with Linux installed. So what was your point?

[tortoise]

Microsoft has the best database technology, the only real GUI development technology, and their operating systems run on 95% of all the computers that are currently being manufactured. The new tool kit called .NET is totally awesome and I see very little chance that the Linux universe is going to create anything to match it.

Maybe you should change your handle to "clueless". Best database technology? Maybe for Windows only, definitely not in any absolute sense. The only "real" GUI development technology? MacOS X pisses all over Windows as a GUI development environment. Never mind that the Windows APIs in general are one of the cruftiest pieces of crap I've ever had the displeasure of using.

As for .NET, you must be a newbie in the world of REAL software. That idea was crusty a decade ago. Puh-lease. And it doesn't even do what it claims to do particularly well.

You are heavy on the marketing copy, real light on experience or knowledge concerning software technology. I don't object to Microsoft, but I do object to the Microsoft Kneepad Brigade.

[eno_]

Hey newbie, I am intimately familiar with .NET. I'm on the smart device extensions beta. But here are two facts: If Microosft poisons themselves with this Palladium crap it won't matter how awesome VS.NET is (and it is awesome). Second, there are object oriented langauges, middleware, and app servers for Linux that are functionally equivalent to building Web apps and Web service in .NET, and cost thousands to tens of thousands less per server in licensing. If you are building, for example, an MMORPG for tens of thousands of users, M$ licensing costs add up pretty quick, and can make a huge difference in time-to-payback on a venture like that. .NET is very nice, it just isn't THAT nice.

[discostu]

That clearly this vile contract you're so worked up about isn't a big deal. Dell is still able to sell competing OSes, even installed on the machines in some cases. Compare this to what some opens sources advocates are trying to do in California that will keep the state government from even CONSIDERING non-open source solution for anything at all and it's clear that this is apples and oranges. The contract with MS doesn't have nearly the fangs of this proposed law and shouldn't even be considered in the same league. Not only do you have the difference between a voluntary contract and an involuntary law, you also have the difference between a limited ban on installs in some machines and a total ban across the board.

[AFreeBird]

Probably Bush2000 trying out a new moniker.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Dell is still able to sell competing OSes, even installed on the machines in some cases.

Installed on servers. Not on desktops. MS won't allow that. Desktops outnumber servers 10 to 1, if not more.

Before you continue your rant, let's clarify your position:

1. It is okay for Microsoft to dictate contract terms to PC manufacturers that lock out other operating systems on the desktop because, since it is a contract, they can just say no, even if saying no would drive them out of business.

2. It is okay for Microsoft to lobby Congress for arcane changes to copyright and patent law that benefit it to the detriment of consumers who don't have lobbyists on the Hill every minute of every day.

3. It is NOT okay for open source proponents to lobby Congress for changes to government purchasing contracts that lock Microsoft out because that just wouldn't be fair.

Does that about sum it up?

[dyed_in_the_wool]

NO ONE FORCES ANYONE! BOTH SIDES AGREE TO THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT!

What part of "Either you install our OS exclusively or not at all" doesn't sound like a threat?

[demlosers]

E-Commerce sites in the US just have to adhere to European VAT rules to be allowed to sell to Europeans.

US does not have to adhere to European VAT rules, they are not their tax collectors. The onus is on the socialist Euro weenies.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

What part of "Either you install our OS exclusively or not at all" doesn't sound like a threat?

None of it sounds like a threat. Do you know what the term "exclusivity" means. It is quite common in all manner of contracts. No one is holding a gun to Dell's head to make them agree to anything. If they don't want to agree to MS's terms they should go find a different OS or invent their own.

DISCLAIMER: These pro-MS rantings have been brought to you courtesy of you friendly neighborhood Open Source developer, albeit from the Win2000 side of his dual-booting Suse/Win2000 Dell unvierse.

[discostu]

Desktops might out number servers, but you charge more for servers.

It is OK for any two companies to enter into VOLUNTARY agreement in contracts. You see I don't bite on this MS obsessive crap. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't believe different companies should get different rules.

It is OK for ANYBODY to lobby Congress for anything. That's what representative government is all about.

But just because somebody lobied for it doesn't mean congress should do it. My complaint isn't with the crowd that's lobbying, it's what they're lobbying for, which is stupid. And again, law and contract, very very different. I have to keep hammering on that because you're so pointedly and deliberately ignoring it. And it really is the key to the issue.

It's clear from you "interpretation" of what I said (actually you were just making crap up that had little if anything to do with what I said, you full time MS bashers are so telegraphed) that yourcomplaint isn't with what MS is doing, but the fact that it's MS. When your complaint is reliant on what the company is rather than the facts of their behavior you'll lose all logical challenges.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Er, uh, couldn't you just give them a workstation with Red Hat or Mandrake installed, along with OpenOffice or StarOffice and be done?
Who needs vi anyway unless you're hardcore, behind the scenes. Not that it's that tough to pick up, but, dude, why?
Your fealty to MS shows that, while you might know buzzwords, you really don't know the Linux culture. Or software.
Check out ximian and maybe read about Project Mono and you'll see how MicroSoft is going to start losing market-share ESPECIALLY once .NET takes off.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Desktops might out number servers, but you charge more for servers.

Gee, you just kind of breezed right on past that one, didn't you? By your own admission Microsoft has locked Linux out of 90+% of the PC market. How much Dell gets for a server versus a workstation is irrelevant to this discussion.

[discostu]

The whole thing. Because, and I'm going to say this very slowly so maybe it will sink through your "everything Ms does is evil" shield:
It's
a
contract
entered
into
voluntarily
by
both
parties

Dell could switch to non-MS stuff. I've heard of another computer manufacturer that ships no MS products on their system, they seem to make a fair chunk of money inspite of their seemingly small install base. Maybe you've heard of them, a little company name Apple.

[discostu]

No. They've locked them out of the desktop market as sold by Dell. And then only the default install. In case you didn't notice Dell isn't the only company that makes desktop PCs, and there's nothing stopping the user from uninstalling Windows.

Actually I was discussing the price of the OS. Windows Server costs more than Windows Desktop, by a lot.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Look, I'm all for a free market. However, MS has done some crappy things. AND they're not a secure OS.
Sure, they can negotiate any contract they want. However Dell did fight back because Linux is key for the server market (where security is important.)
Withholding the biggest OS in the industry is putting a gun to Dell's head. It's that simple.
And why shouldn't Linux fight back? Look at what MS did to Netscape, Novell, etc.
Embrace and extend.
Bottom line, some governments are not allowed to do business with monopolies and MS has been ruled to be just that. Whether you like MS or not isn't the question.
And you should format your drive and install Slackware. But that's another story.

[r9etb]

Dell could switch to non-MS stuff.

And the reason they don't switch is because Dell users expect to see Windows when they turn the machine on. Bioforce1 may be a newbie, but he's put his finger on the real issue, which is that Microsoft has succeded in cementing the perception that "Using a Computer" = "Using Windows".

All this talk of Linux, open source, and all the other stuff fails to deal with this one "simple" fact.